The foreknowledge debate consists of two very popular views and one less known view; the Arminian view, the Calvinist view and the Open view. The Arminian view suggests that God foreknows all of our future free-will actions. The Calvinistic view holds that God foreknows all of future actions and events by sovereignly ordaining them. Lastly, the Open view declares that God foreknows all that shall be and all that may be. Though the Open view is brand new to me, I believe it holds the most logical view of God and reveals the most pleasing relationship to be had with him. So, I support an Open view of God.
Throughout my life thus far, I have struggled day in and day out with understanding God. I have had a continual war within me asking why he has allowed what he has allowed. I have only had the opportunity to understand God through the lenses of the Arminian view or the Calvinistic view but, neither view has provided me with any peace or comfort. The Open view provides that peace and makes sense of things that could never be understood by humankind otherwise. The Open view supports the idea that God knows all things actual and all things possible. This suggests that God may not know everything that is going to happen, just the possibility of what could happen. That idea alone solves a million problems, at least for me anyway. If God doesn’t know for certain every detail of the future then God is no longer (in my mind) responsible for the actions of Satan. If the Arminian view or Calvinistic view is correct then God is thereby responsible for the sin, death and pain that the people of the world have experienced. If I knew my friend was going to kill someone and I did nothing about it, I would share my friend’s guilt; if God knew Lucifer was going to fall and bring death upon the world, he too would be guilty. Would he not? The Open view solves that dilemma by claiming that God does not know everything that will happen. Therefore, he did not know Lucifer would fall, he only that it was possible. (Sanders)
If God truly does not know every detail of the future then he is closer to me than I previously thought. If he does not know all of the future in certainty then his love for me and desire for relationship with me is much stronger and clearer than I previously understood. God would seem to be a much better teacher, leader and friend if he were at my side guiding me to be wise in action for the purpose of better “possibilities.” God would seem to be holding my hand if he did not know all of the future in certainty. His coaching would be so much more profoundly understood if he only knew the possibilities. I can imagine him leaning in to tell me, “be wise, and listen to me. Be humble; keep your eyes on me.” He knows what could happen with each action I make but, his lack of already knowing the outcome would make him so much more real to me. God would still be perfect in knowledge; we would just have to widen our understanding of “perfect in knowledge.” The Open view allows for God to be so much closer to us in a relational way then the other views could ever allow; it allows him to make sense to us.
“Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Thy servants to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself, and didst say to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’ So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exodus 32:12-14 NASB). In the NIV and NKJV the wording of “the Lord changed his mind” is translated as “the Lord relented.” By definition relented means “to become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving” (The Free Dictionary). So, this verse looks like the Lord changed his mind about the actions he would take and if the Lord changed his mind then the future could not have been exhaustively settled in Gods mind before he changed it. (Slick, 2009)
“And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people spurn Me? And how long will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs which I have performed in their midst?” (Num. 14:11). God is speaking to Moses here asking him “how long, how long.” (Biblica) One could suggest that just because God asks a question does not mean he does not know the answer, which is true, but it is also true that he may not know the answer to the question he asked. The answer for me lays in common sense; why ask a question if you already know the answer? Perhaps God was just showing disappointment to Moses in order to whip him into shape and get him praying. One would then have to ask why God wouldn’t just tell Moses he was disappointed instead of asking him “how long will they not believe in me?” If God knew everything those people were going to do, then why would God have performed “signs in their midst?” If he knew the signs would do nothing to cause the people to believe and further knew just how long it would take for them to believe, then why send the signs or ask Moses the question? It would be more logical and less of a hassle to just assume that God was genuinely asking a question, he didn’t expect an answer, but he certainly didn’t know the answer himself. To ignore that possibility is ignorant. (Slick, 2009)
“The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them’” (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV). If God foreknew that his creation would become wicked then why was he so grieved? If I knew that someone was going to bully me or hurt me I would prepare myself for that physically, mentally and emotionally. God being “perfect” would do but the same but even better right? I would like to think that he would have created humankind a bit different if he really knew he would be so disappointed and grieved with the ones he did create. God literally wiped them off the earth, killed them all and started over with Noah he was so grieved. If God foreknew how grieved he would become with humans then he also knew that he would cause a flood. If he knew that he would cause a flood to wipe humans out before they did anything to deserve it then God is a God of drama and is doing these things for a story, which is pointless. (Slick, 2009)
To say that God knows every detail of the future and yet still continues to somehow play an active role in it is a very odd notion. Yet, Arminian’s and Calvinist’s would agree in that statement. Arminians believe (in general) that God knows every single thing we will do with our free-will, but why then would God encourage us to try to help save someone he already knows is going to freely choose spiritual death and hell in the end? Calvinists believe (in general) that God knows everything because he ordains all things to happen, but why then would we even try to help bring people to Christ? The Open view is a middle ground in the sense that it is less extreme, but also a higher ground because free will and predestination make more sense through the Open view. To the Arminian I would ask “How can you have free will if God already knows every step you will ever take and every action you will ever do?” That does not sound like free will to me. To the Calvinist I would ask “Why would you ever try to do anything in life if every action you make is controlled by God? If you are already predestined to go to heaven or hell then do what you want at anytime you want because it will not change anything, right? Besides, if you end up in jail then you were predestined to be there, correct?” The Open view makes sense, too bad traditional understanding is so “set in.” (Yuan)
The likely opposition to Open Theism would most likely be an argument against how new this view is; if a biblical view such as Open Theism were correct then why was it not discovered or commonly held until now? It would seem that Calvinism and Arminianism would be better views for the very reason of their more wide spread acceptance. More often than not new theological ideas pass away as quickly as they come into play, and stating that against the Open view would make for some good doubt.
However new a concept the Open view may be, I think it holds a lot of promise. The Open view has a lot of benefits such as seeing God as closer and more personable to us. It cures the problem of God creating Satan and therefore being responsible for sin and death. It also takes care of the problem with prayer. Why pray if God has already predetermined everything? Why pray if the only thing to change is your own free will? The Open view should be more widely and openly talked about and should be considered by all Christians.
References
Biblica. (n.d.). Passage Lookup. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from www.BibleGateway.com: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:5-8&version=NIV
Sanders, D. J. (n.d.). Open Theism Information. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from http://www.opentheism.info/: http://www.opentheism.info/
Slick, M. J. (2009). Open Theism verses listed by topic. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/open-theism/open-theism-verses-listed-topic#
The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relented
Yuan, D. S. (n.d.). Calvinism Versus Arminian. Retrieved 10 24, 2009, from www.yutopian.com: http://www.yutopian.com/religion/theology/Calvinism.html